This is still not conclusive enough. You are arguing from silence. Just because the Bible does not mention that Peter, James and John had wives or children does not mean that they were not married and hod no children, right? Besides, are the writers of the Gospels expected to give us the exact members of the family of Jesus? Another point to ponder: In the Gospel of John, Jesus enstrusted Mary to John at the foot of the cross. This would not be the case in Jewish culture if Mary had other sons. Still, I go back to my original question: if I would not believe the leaders of the early Church, like Saint Jerome who was the first to tackle the issue on the so-called brothers of Jesus and who taught in favor of the perpetual virginity of Mary, why should I believe any Johnny-come-lately Tom, Dick and Harry who teaches otherwise?

You misunderstand the silence. When God does something that deviates from the norm, He tells us. Why don’t we have something in scripture that clearly informs us that Mary (and Joseph) lived a celibate life? I see no scripture that indicates such was the case, therefore it is reasonable to believe Joseph and Mary did have normal, marital relations.

When Jesus entrusted Mary to John He was not violating any Jewish laws. First, His brothers weren’t there, second, Jesus had a covenant relation with John (you really should look into how this was practiced), which made John closer than a brother.

Please, please, please, do NOT believe ANYTHING I (or any other priest, pastor, bishop, pope, lord high muck-a-muck, or whatever) say. Go to Scripture and see if I’m telling the truth! This is what the Bereans did with Paul when he preached to them (see Acts 17:11)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cranch

Are you under the impression that you are debating Protestants? Catholics do not subscribe to Sola Scriptura. Your premise is flawed so your conclusions are as well.

I am under no illusions about who is reading this thread. I know Catholics generally reject Sola Scriptura. Still, I have yet to have anyone demonstrate the “Sacred Tradition” of the perpetual virginity back to the Apostles (and if it didn’t come from the Apostles, how is it a Sacred Tradition?).

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Zampino

The problem here, is that the two sides of the discussion are operating under diametrically opposed paradigms, which are completely incompatible.

Cachonga is arguing from a "prove it from Scripture" Sola Scriptura mindset -- and a fairly radical one at that.

The Catholics are arguing from a "the Church is the interpreter of Scripture" mindset -- a mindset which recognizes the authority of Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium.

The two views are irreconcilable.

OK, so tell me, doesn’t the Magisterium get it’s authority from Sacred Scriptures and Sacred Tradition? If you answered “Yes” (and I can’t imaging you wouldn’t), doesn’t the Magisterium define and interpret both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition? Again, I’m guessing you would say “Yes”. Now then, if the Magisterium defines and interprets BOTH Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, aren’t you (ultimately) putting your immortal soul in the hands of this Magisterium? God brought me out of the Roman Catholic Church when I was meditating on the Church teachings, whether I really understood what they were teaching or not. I asked myself, “Do I really understand what the Church teaches about Heaven, Hell and Purgatory?”, then God asked me, “What if they’re teaching you wrong?” This was not an audible voice, but it did cause me to shake in fear from the very core of my being. It still took many years before I left the Catholic Church, but I believe God directed me, and He used Sola Scriptura.

I do not believe God gave anyone the authority to add to His Word (see Prov 30:6). I’d like to know if you believe, based on the “binding and loosing” verse, that when the Church “infallibley” declares something to be true, God makes it true? You can explain it any way you want, but it’s a “Yes” or “No question.

First, where does it mean that the Church "adds to His Word" when binding and loosing? The Church is exercising His Word when She displays the Authority to Bind and Loose.

And, instead of saying "Yes", which is the closest answer to your question, I would re-state it this way:
When the Church declares something infallibly, God doesn't "make it true". He simply insures that what the Church declares infallibly is, and always has been, true.

Hence, God didn't miraculously go back in time and make Mary ever-virgin. Mary always was ever-virgin.

If this were not the case, then Jesus would have spoke in-accurately when He gave the Church this authority.

BTW, what do you think "binding and loosing" meant to the ancient Jews?

__________________Follow your Dreams! Except for the ones where you're naked in Church!

You misunderstand the silence. When God does something that deviates from the norm, He tells us. Why don’t we have something in scripture that clearly informs us that Mary (and Joseph) lived a celibate life? I see no scripture that indicates such was the case, therefore it is reasonable to believe Joseph and Mary did have normal, marital relations.

Where do you get the underlined point? It doesn't say in Scripture that God will do this, hence, once could say that you are "adding to His Word".

Secondly, why does Scripture have to indicate all truths? Where does is say that? Personally, I thought the Church is the pillar and bulwark of Truth.

__________________Follow your Dreams! Except for the ones where you're naked in Church!

Don't people add to his word all the time? I'd wager whatever denomination you are does the same. Any time something is done that is not specifically said it is adding to his word. Where is there such a thing as an altar call in the Bible, oh and where is the term even used in the Bible? (just one example could give many)

This is exactly why we should search the scriptures and verify what we're being taught. How can you search "sacred tradition"? For an alter call, I would refer you to Acts 2. I'll show you the term "Alter Call" when you show me the word "Trinity" (of course these words are not contained in Scripture, but the concept is clear).

Quote:

Originally Posted by mtk76

I think you missed his point. All denominations interpret scriptures whether they want to acknowledge it or not. Jesus said of the last supper do this in rembrance of me. As an example he didn't say how often. How have you decided to implement it?(daily, weekly, monthly etc?) Congratulations you've know made your own rule that isn't specifically defined in the Bible.

Since Scripture doesn’t tell us how often to partake of the Lord’s Supper, then the individual Churches have the freedom to implement it as they see fit. This is not adding to God's word.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mtk76

He did it once remember Jesus was still fully God and fully man when he washed the disciples feet...

Are you turning an example (John 13:15) to His disciples while He was still on Earth into a regular practice in Heaven?

Quote:

Originally Posted by mtk76

PS: What does this mean? What does enjoyment have to do with something being right or wrong? Tag lines speak volumes.

I wake up early on Sunday morning, praising God that I get to go to Church and join other believers in praise and worship of Him! I wake up early Monday through Friday, praising God, thrilled and excited that I get to go to work (I love my job!). I start my work week with TGIM (Thank God It’s Monday)! I wake up on Saturday praising God for another wonderful day in His world! If there is ever anything in my life that doesn’t cause me to praise God, then it’s wrong. (BTW – I enjoy praising God!)

I continue to see post here that Blaspheme against the Blessed Mother repeatedly and frankly, it is insulting and offensive at every level. There are those that come here claiming to be Christians, yet they denigrate the Blessed Mother (CHRIST’S MOTHER). They twist and pervert Sacred Scripture, and do all this in the name of Christian Charity. It is pathetic that these individuals are so disingenuous and intellectually dishonest. They are never original in there thinking and just parrot the same anti-Catholic talking points as if we have never seen them before.

This reminds me of when Jesus was admonishing the Pharisees and used the term “brood of vipers.” They were going at Him with matters of faith, Challenging Him, trying to trick Him, all the while trying to shake the faith of those around them. They thought themselves to such virtuous individuals. The brood of vipers here, who think of themselves as virtuous individuals, are these individuals who continually disrespect and blaspheme the Blessed Mother. The kicker is that they probably treat their dogs or cats with more respect than they do the Mother of God, how sad.

The fact is, these “vipers” are infinitely fallible and would never believe that the Catholic Church is right on anything. They are bitter and obstinate, they feel that they have all the truths of Sacred Scripture revealed to them and have set themselves up in authority. These “vipers” error so grievously, they cannot in their very finite abilities comprehend the concepts of Sacred Scripture or the teaching of the Early Church Fathers or the Doctors of the Church. They have no respect for Catholic beliefs that do not fit their limited views.

Yes, this is harsh, I make no apologies for this, as long as there are those here that treat the Blessed Mother the way that they do, I am not going to sit by a say nothing. In the end, I really do not think any of this will sink in. Oh, they will attempt some sort of indignation, but this is from a false sense of righteousness. So be it.

Matthew 1:25 has me confused. I believe that there will be an explanation, but I need help finding it.

In comparing four different versions, they all indicate that Joseph had no relations with Mary until she bore a son. This implies to me that he did after. Below is the verse in the translations I used:

But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

Does anyone have a good explanation for this?

Haydocks Catholic Commentary

Verse 18 [into to v 25]

Ver. 18. The account of the birth of Jesus Christ follows his genealogy. From these words, "before they came together," Helvidius and others have started objections, which have been answered long ago by St. Jerome, where he shews in many examples from Scripture, that the words before and until do not signify what happened afterwards; for that point is left indefinite, but only what was done before, or not done. Thus when it is said, Sit thou at my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool, Psalm cix, by no means signifies, that after the subjection of his enemies, the Son of God is no longer to sit at the right hand of his Father. In common conversation, when we say that a man died before he reached his 30th year, we do not mean that he afterwards attained it. Or, should we say that Helvidius died before he did penance, we cannot mean that he afterwards did penance: the same conclusion should be deduced from the words, "before they came together," the end being accomplished by the power of the operation of the Holy Ghost, without their going together. If we should advance, that such a man was cured before he went to a physician, the natural inference would be, that he did not go to a physician at all. Thus also in the language of Scripture, the word first-begotten does not mean after whom others were born, but before whom no one was born, whether there were further issue or not. And the reason is, because the law required that a sacrifice should be offered for the first-born, and that he should be redeemed very soon after his birth; nor did it allow the parents to wait and see if any other son should be born. (Estius) --- True and perfect marriage, and continual living in the same, without knowing each other

Ver. 25. See note on ver. 18. --- St. Jerome assures us, that St. Joseph always preserved his virginal chastity. It is "of faith" that nothing contrary thereto ever took place with his chaste spouse, the blessed Virgin Mary. St. Joseph was given her by heaven to be the protector of her chastity, to secure her from calumnies in the birth of the Son of God, to assist her in her flight into Egypt, &c. &c. We cannot sufficiently admire the modest reserve of both parties. Mary does not venture to explain to her troubled husband the mystery of her pregnancy; and Joseph is afraid of mentioning his uneasiness and doubts, for fear of troubling her delicate mind and wounding her exquisite feelings. So great modesty, reserve and silence, are sure to be approved by heaven; and God sends an angel to Joseph in his sleep, to dissipate his doubts, and to expound to him the mystery of the incarnation

The verse only addresses what occured up until the time Jesus was born--it says nothing about what happened afterward. Some Protestants impose an implication on the verse that isn't there. The Catholic Answers tract "Brethren of the Lord" points out:

Thank you so much for giving me a clear way to discuss this issue with my evangelical friends...I always just said it was because of translation, since we know that there are so many more words in Hebrew that we were sort of stuck with our limited vocabulary, but now I have some real scripture behind it...thanks again!

You misunderstand the silence. When God does something that deviates from the norm, He tells us. Why don’t we have something in scripture that clearly informs us that Mary (and Joseph) lived a celibate life? I see no scripture that indicates such was the case, therefore it is reasonable to believe Joseph and Mary did have normal, marital relations.

When Jesus entrusted Mary to John He was not violating any Jewish laws. First, His brothers weren’t there, second, Jesus had a covenant relation with John (you really should look into how this was practiced), which made John closer than a brother.

Please, please, please, do NOT believe ANYTHING I (or any other priest, pastor, bishop, pope, lord high muck-a-muck, or whatever) say. Go to Scripture and see if I’m telling the truth! This is what the Bereans did with Paul when he preached to them (see Acts 17:11)

I am under no illusions about who is reading this thread. I know Catholics generally reject Sola Scriptura. Still, I have yet to have anyone demonstrate the “Sacred Tradition” of the perpetual virginity back to the Apostles (and if it didn’t come from the Apostles, how is it a Sacred Tradition?).

OK, so tell me, doesn’t the Magisterium get it’s authority from Sacred Scriptures and Sacred Tradition? If you answered “Yes” (and I can’t imaging you wouldn’t), doesn’t the Magisterium define and interpret both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition? Again, I’m guessing you would say “Yes”. Now then, if the Magisterium defines and interprets BOTH Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, aren’t you (ultimately) putting your immortal soul in the hands of this Magisterium? God brought me out of the Roman Catholic Church when I was meditating on the Church teachings, whether I really understood what they were teaching or not. I asked myself, “Do I really understand what the Church teaches about Heaven, Hell and Purgatory?”, then God asked me, “What if they’re teaching you wrong?” This was not an audible voice, but it did cause me to shake in fear from the very core of my being. It still took many years before I left the Catholic Church, but I believe God directed me, and He used Sola Scriptura.

The word "Bible" isn't in the Bible, but Paul does tell us in 2Thes,2:15 to follow what is taught whether by WORD of mouth OR by LETTER...this says to me that there is more than the Bible to look at. Everything in the Bible is true, but not everything that is true is in the Bible...ie, stem cell research, Euthanasia, or abortion or even the trinity. Therefore we need something to supplement the Bible. Even in John's Gospel he says "But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written" As far as someone putting their soul in the magisterium's hands, Jesus told Peter that he would give him the keys to the kingdom of heaven and that he would build HIS church upon that rock (Peter), Not a church, but HIS church. If he wasn't that important in the propagation of the faith I doubt Jesus would have given such a feat to Peter. Have there been bad popes, priests or even lay people? yes, but that's in all religions, it's no reason for you to abandon your faith. I pray you come back. I'm a convert. after reading the Bible realized I had to become Catholic and it has blessed my life so much...wherever you are in your spiritual journey I hope that you are happy. God Bless you,

I continue to see post here that Blaspheme against the Blessed Mother repeatedly and frankly, it is insulting and offensive at every level. There are those that come here claiming to be Christians, yet they denigrate the Blessed Mother (CHRIST’S MOTHER). They twist and pervert Sacred Scripture, and do all this in the name of Christian Charity. It is pathetic that these individuals are so disingenuous and intellectually dishonest. They are never original in there thinking and just parrot the same anti-Catholic talking points as if we have never seen them before.

This reminds me of when Jesus was admonishing the Pharisees and used the term “brood of vipers.” They were going at Him with matters of faith, Challenging Him, trying to trick Him, all the while trying to shake the faith of those around them. They thought themselves to such virtuous individuals. The brood of vipers here, who think of themselves as virtuous individuals, are these individuals who continually disrespect and blaspheme the Blessed Mother. The kicker is that they probably treat their dogs or cats with more respect than they do the Mother of God, how sad.

The fact is, these “vipers” are infinitely fallible and would never believe that the Catholic Church is right on anything. They are bitter and obstinate, they feel that they have all the truths of Sacred Scripture revealed to them and have set themselves up in authority. These “vipers” error so grievously, they cannot in their very finite abilities comprehend the concepts of Sacred Scripture or the teaching of the Early Church Fathers or the Doctors of the Church. They have no respect for Catholic beliefs that do not fit their limited views.

Yes, this is harsh, I make no apologies for this, as long as there are those here that treat the Blessed Mother the way that they do, I am not going to sit by a say nothing. In the end, I really do not think any of this will sink in. Oh, they will attempt some sort of indignation, but this is from a false sense of righteousness. So be it.

I'm so with you! I hate seeing people putting down the mother of my Lord, as Elizabeth would say. there are peple on this site just trying to get Catholics to abandon their faith, we need to look at this as it actually is...the devil. Thank God we have the true Church that Christ established! God Bless,

I'm so with you! I hate seeing people putting down the mother of my Lord, as Elizabeth would say. there are peple on this site just trying to get Catholics to abandon their faith, we need to look at this as it actually is...the devil. Thank God we have the true Church that Christ established! God Bless,

Katrn

Thanks, I did not want to kill this thread but I wanted to express that when we talk about the Blessed Mother, that it is done with respect. The disrespect that I see, in this thread and many others (this thread is where I just happened to vent), is the devaluing and bringing the Mother of God down to our level. This is the same Mother that Christ loved and cherished. Protestants do not need to believe the way Catholics do, however, when discussing the Blessed Mother there needs to be a level of respect so as not to offend ones faith.

Protestants do not need to believe the way Catholics do, however, when discussing the Blessed Mother there needs to be a level of respect so as not to offend ones faith.

Indeed. I completely agree. And I think that a certain "former Catholic" posting on this thread is enjoying pushing buttons on purpose.

Even when I was a Protestant, I took the attitude of "I'd rather err on the side of too much respect, than too little respect". It's an attitude that others would do well to emulate.

When I hear a Protestant trashing on Our Lady -- not merely disagreeing, but trashing -- I often envision that individual, standing before the Throne on that Last Day, and hearing Jesus say "Do you want to repeat to My Face, what you've been saying about My Mother?"!

NOT a position I'd ever like to be in!

__________________David A. Zampino
Tiber Swim Team -- Class of 2005

God is the Lord, of angels, and of men -- and of elves.
Legend and History have met and fused.

Indeed. I completely agree. And I think that a certain "former Catholic" posting on this thread is enjoying pushing buttons on purpose.

Even when I was a Protestant, I took the attitude of "I'd rather err on the side of too much respect, than too little respect". It's an attitude that others would do well to emulate.

When I hear a Protestant trashing on Our Lady -- not merely disagreeing, but trashing -- I often envision that individual, standing before the Throne on that Last Day, and hearing Jesus say "Do you want to repeat to My Face, what you've been saying about My Mother?"!

NOT a position I'd ever like to be in!

True, so true, I would not want to be standing before God and having to account for all of my sins in life and have to give account for dishonoring the Blessed Mother as being among them.

I guess I would like to ask the Protestants a question, is trash talking the Blessed Mother a minority or a majority of your community. If I am correct, in general, I do not think the Lutherans or the Episcopalians dishonor Her, are there other denominations out there that have a level of reverence for the Holy Mother? I ask because I do not know.

True, so true, I would not want to be standing before God and having to account for all of my sins in life and have to give account for dishonoring the Blessed Mother as being among them.

I guess I would like to ask the Protestants a question, is trash talking the Blessed Mother a minority or a majority of your community. If I am correct, in general, I do not think the Lutherans or the Episcopalians dishonor Her, are there other denominations out there that have a level of reverence for the Holy Mother? I ask because I do not know.

At the time of the Reformation, Marian questions were not part of the disagreements leading to the splits. That came later with some of the more Radical Reformers. Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli (and John Wesley!) had very high views of the Blessed Virgin to the point of earnestly defending the very doctrines our "former Catholic" has been deriding.

High Anglicans and High Episcopalians hold a very high view of the Blessed Virgin, even if particular doctrines are not "defined".

At the time of the Reformation, Marian questions were not part of the disagreements leading to the splits. That came later with some of the more Radical Reformers. Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli (and John Wesley!) had very high views of the Blessed Virgin to the point of earnestly defending the very doctrines our "former Catholic" has been deriding.

High Anglicans and High Episcopalians hold a very high view of the Blessed Virgin, even if particular doctrines are not "defined".

First, where does it mean that the Church "adds to His Word" when binding and loosing? The Church is exercising His Word when She displays the Authority to Bind and Loose.

And, instead of saying "Yes", which is the closest answer to your question, I would re-state it this way:
When the Church declares something infallibly, God doesn't "make it true". He simply insures that what the Church declares infallibly is, and always has been, true.

Hence, God didn't miraculously go back in time and make Mary ever-virgin. Mary always was ever-virgin.

If this were not the case, then Jesus would have spoke in-accurately when He gave the Church this authority.

BTW, what do you think "binding and loosing" meant to the ancient Jews?

I think we’re straying from the topic of this thread, however, I do not believe that Jesus gave the Church (much less a “pope”) the “gift of infallibility” in any context. I do believe He gave His Church the authority to teach His Word, and that certain men (like Peter, Paul, John and others) were inspired to write the New Testament Scriptures so that we could have a sure guide. 2 Tim 3:16 (“All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice,” DR) makes it clear that ALL Scripture (including the New Testament) is “inspired by God”, or “God-breathed”. Verse 17 states, “That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.” (DR). Funny Paul doesn’t mention tradition in this way.

Leaving aside the scriptures that mention the brothers (and sisters) of Jesus, there is no clear statement in Scripture that Joseph and Mary had anything but a (reasonably) normal married life, which would include marital relations. If you want to believe she was always a virgin, that’s your right, but to make it a dogma of the Church, and to say that I must believe it in order to be in right standing with the Church is the same as adding to God’s Word (just like when Eve added “we can’t even touch it” when talking about the Tree of Knowledge. See Gen 3:3).

In regard to “binding and loosing”, while I don’t usually like to bring in the ECF’s, I would point out that in Origen’s Commentary on Matthew (Book XII, Chapter 14) the binding and loosing is associated with forgiveness of sins (also see Book XIII, Chapter 31). I would suggest that a Commentary on a canonical book would be suggestive of what the Church believed at the time (just for fun, check out Book XII, Chapter 10 and see who Origen identifies as the “Rock”).

Quote:

Originally Posted by NotWorthy

Where do you get the underlined point? It doesn't say in Scripture that God will do this, hence, once could say that you are "adding to His Word".

Secondly, why does Scripture have to indicate all truths? Where does is say that? Personally, I thought the Church is the pillar and bulwark of Truth.

How do we know Israel crossed the Red Sea on dry ground instead of having a large fleet of ships carry them across? How do we know Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by God’s judgment rather than just a coincidental meteor strike? How do we know Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit instead of the usual way women become pregnant? The answer is clear – the Bible clearly tells us so! Do the Scriptures clearly tell us that Mary remained a virgin her entire life? Do the Scriptures tell us clearly that Joseph and Mary NEVER had marital relations? Do the Scriptures clearly tell us that Jesus was an only child? If you think they do, please give me the Scriptures!

What, in matters of faith and morals, do you think is true that is not in Scripture? You are correct, the Church is the pillar and bulwark of the Truth. The Church is NOT the truth, but it holds up the Truth, which we can be sure is found in the God-breathed Scriptures!

Quote:

Originally Posted by wmscott

I continue to see post here that Blaspheme against the Blessed Mother repeatedly and frankly, it is insulting and offensive at every level. There are those that come here claiming to be Christians, yet they denigrate the Blessed Mother (CHRIST’S MOTHER). They twist and pervert Sacred Scripture, and do all this in the name of Christian Charity. It is pathetic that these individuals are so disingenuous and intellectually dishonest. They are never original in there thinking and just parrot the same anti-Catholic talking points as if we have never seen them before.
<and following>

Let me make myself clear – I believe Mary was chosen by God to be the mother of Jesus, that she was virgin when she conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, and remained a virgin until Jesus was born. I believe she is blessed of God above all the women of the earth (past, present, or to come), and that she was uniquely equipped by God for her role as mother of Messiah. I do not believe it is honoring to her (or to God) to go beyond what God has revealed to us about her in His word! I do not deny that Mary may have been bodily assumed, and it is possible she may have remained virgin for a time after Jesus was born, but I do not believe there is sufficient evidence in Scripture to require me to believe these dogmas in order to be in right standing with the Church. I have made it clear in other posts that I am not infallible, and I encourage people to do what the Bereans did with Paul, that is, go to the Scriptures and see if what I’m saying is true. I am sorry if anyone is offended at my position, but I’m sure there were people who were offended at some of the things Jesus said, so I won’t sweat it.